Verdiem: Using Software to Curb Energy Abuse

Description

Global carbon regulation is arguably the largest risk and opportunity most corporations will face in the beginning of the 21st century. It has been estimated that turnover in the global carbon marketplace could exceed a trillion dollars in the next five
to ten years. Voluntary and mandatory reporting protocols are emerging. How can an organization know its true carbon footprint and exposure? What options are available to manage corporate carbon risk?
What impact can energy efficiency programs have on reducing a corporation’s carbon footprint?

Verdiem provides power management software for PC networks; their Surveyor software provides measurable energy and cost savings through network level control over pc and monitor power settings administered via windows services
that to date translates to:

over US$32 million in customer ROIover 324,500,000 in kwh savedenergy saved by Verdiem customers is equal to taking 34,00 cars off the road and reducing Greenhouse emissions by 277,555.44 tons

Verdiem really puts into perspective how we are all effecting the world around us, and how the global marketplace is shaping up to address these issues.

Here, we chat with Bruce Twito, Verdiem CTO and VP of Product Development about how Surveyor works, the impact Surveyor has on global carbon reduction, and we get unfiltered feedback for the Microsoft technologies that Verdiem relies upon for their core business
offerings.

It seems that FatherNature (Al Gore) even has an impact within the software community.

What's next? A slimmed down version of Visual Studio that consumes less power and thus saves the polar bears from drowning?

All in all, amusing video.

SM

Responsible energy consumption is a responsibility of any large consumer of energy (companies like Microsoft, for example). Your reaction is interesting, though understandable. Global Warming is the new Abortion of politics. The difference is that we can't
live on Venus, but we can live with or without potential offspring.

Politics is too simple-minded of a medium for such an important topic: planetary sustainability of conditions that make life as we know it possible.
Anything we can do as energy hogs (and we are hogs) to limit the abuse of energy and the subsequent atmospheric perturbation fallout, the better off future generations of non-aborted humans will be

My hat's off to Verdiem, OSIsoft and others for helping us help ourselves in this area. Now, Microsoft, let's buy some Verdiem software, eh?

I understand and actually with agree your point. You are right in saying that Global Warming is the new abortion of politics because it has divided the aisles and no one is listening anymore.

That said, I believe anything in excess is bad. The only reason I believe in energy conservation is to make my monthly bill lower. Other than that, it doesn't make economical sense.

I, for one, also believe that as humans we are nieve to think that we can destroy something we cannot create. My critics say that we are destroying the planet; however, the fact that we are unable to stop a hurricane from killing thousands of people sort of
disproves that fact and a hurricane is less than 1% of the total energy that can be produced by nature.

I believe that company's like Verdiem have good intentions but it seems to me that their profitability is only going to rise as the government makes further restrictions on power consumption. When a business primarily exists on the hope of future congressional
action the model has flaws. I am not saying that is the case with Verdiem but I see many businesses that fit that model.

A business that is based on the demand of the consumer is more likely to succeed.

﻿
I, for one, also believe that as humans we are nieve to think that we can destroy something we cannot create. My critics say that we are destroying the planet; however, the fact that we are unable to stop a hurricane from killing thousands of people sort of
disproves that fact and a hurricane is less than 1% of the total energy that can be produced by nature.

In practise global warming caused by human induced average global temperature increase, and this has been shown to be true by a very large number of scientific papers on the subject.

Your argument at this point falls down. Since we did make the increase, we surely
can make a decrease, and since global carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming (and many recent scientific studies show this increase from 180ppm natural state of carbon to the 330ppm state today, which is projected to be in the 450ppm region
by 2020, over three times the highest ever carbon amount in the atmosphere since the first trees evolved), it makes a great deal of sense to attempt a reduction of carbon in the atmosphere, which begins by slowing the rate of increase.

You suggest in your post that humans are too small to make a difference, but if you remember back to the early 1990s, the ozone hole was a major environmental threat, and due to the unilateral agreements between most of the developed countries in the world,
including Russia, China, the US, the EU, Australia, OPEC and South Africa, the ozone hole has all but finally disappeared.

It's not a question of if humans do something about it, but rather when; and the economic reviews (see Stern et al) suggest that it will be increasingly economically crippling to postpone carbon-emission intervention on a global scale.

SCMcDonnell wrote:﻿
I, for one, also believe that as humans we are nieve to think that we can destroy something we cannot create. My critics say that we are destroying the planet; however, the fact that we are unable to stop a hurricane from killing thousands of people sort of
disproves that fact and a hurricane is less than 1% of the total energy that can be produced by nature.

In practise global warming caused by human induced average global temperature increase, and this has been shown to be true by a very large number of scientific papers on the subject.

Your argument at this point falls down. Since we did make the increase, we surely
can make a decrease, and since global carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming (and many recent scientific studies show this increase from 180ppm natural state of carbon to the 330ppm state today, which is projected to be in the 450ppm region
by 2020, over three times the highest ever carbon amount in the atmosphere since the first trees evolved), it makes a great deal of sense to attempt a reduction of carbon in the atmosphere, which begins by slowing the rate of increase.

You suggest in your post that humans are too small to make a difference, but if you remember back to the early 1990s, the ozone hole was a major environmental threat, and due to the unilateral agreements between most of the developed countries in the world,
including Russia, China, the US, the EU, Australia, OPEC and South Africa, the ozone hole has all but finally disappeared.

It's not a question of if humans do something about it, but rather when; and the economic reviews (see Stern et al) suggest that it will be increasingly economically crippling to postpone carbon-emission intervention on a global scale.

Those scientists are just keeping the research dollars going. I frooze my *ss off this winter till April/May. Maybe it is reversed. But then they need to modify the research.

In this situation, forget about global warming. They're saving money! Being green saves green. In more ways than one, really, as preventing climate change will save more money in the long run than not.